Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Even during the Liquidation Process, the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the Application filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 can be withdrawn u/s 12A of IBC – S. Rajendran, Liquidator of M/s. Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that it is significant to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Shwetha Vishwanath Shrike & Ors. vs. The Committee of Creditors & Anr. (2019) ibclaw.in 470 NCLAT has held that the Promoters / Shareholders are entitled to settle the matters in terms of Section 12A and in such case, it is always open to the Applicant to withdraw the Application. Further, the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of V. Navaneetha Krishnan -Vs- Central Bank of India, Coimbatore & Anr. (2018) ibclaw.in 298 NCLAT has held that even during the Liquidation period, if any persons, nor barred under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 satisfy the demand of the Committee of Creditors, such person may move before the Adjudicating Authority for withdrawal of proceedings. Thus, it could be seen even during the liquidation process, the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the Application filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 can be withdrawn.

Even during the Liquidation Process, the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the Application filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 can be withdrawn u/s 12A of IBC – S. Rajendran, Liquidator of M/s. Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

NCLT Chennai Bench directs IBBI to share the database of IPs including the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 – M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. G. Ramakrishna Reddy – NCLT Chennai Bench

Rule 8 of the AAIRPPG Rules, 2019 states that the Board  may share a  database  of the Insolvency Professionals, including the information about the disciplinary proceedings against them with the Adjudicating Authority from time to time. However, upon enquiry from the Registry of this Tribunal, it was found that no such database including in relation to disciplinary proceedings, if  any, of  the insolvency professionals is being shared to the Chennai Bench of NCLT by the Board under the relevant Rules as above. Hence, in this regard, we hereby direct the IBBI also to share the database of the insolvency professionals including  the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016.

NCLT Chennai Bench directs IBBI to share the database of IPs including the details about the disciplinary proceeding, if any which is pending against them, for effective adjudication of matters listed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 – M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. G. Ramakrishna Reddy – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

The Liquidator is to keep in mind that while admitting or rejecting the claims under Section 40 of the Code, he has to act as Quasi-Judicial Authority and will have to pass a reasoned order for perusal of the Adjudicating Authority – Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Anr.- NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The Liquidator is to keep in mind that while admitting or rejecting the claims under Section 40 of the Code, he has to act as Quasi-Judicial Authority and will have to pass a reasoned order for perusal of the Adjudicating Authority – Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Anr.- NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The application cannot be rejected on the ground of existence of dispute due to the pendency of the arbitration proceedings – Marg Limited Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The application cannot be rejected on the ground of existence of dispute due to the pendency of the arbitration proceedings – Marg Limited Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top